Ex Parte ZHAO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12828035 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/828,035 06/30/2010 XU GANG ZHAO
93253 7590 08/31/2016
Garlick & Markison (VIXS)
P.O. Box 160727
Austin, TX 78716-0727
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
VIXS164US 6073
EXAMINER
SULLIVAN, TYLER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
MMurdock@texaspatents.com
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XU GANG ZHAO, YINXIA YANG, ERIC YOUNG, and
EDWARD HONG
Appeal2015-000963
Application 12/828,035
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-15, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify VIXS Systems, Inc. as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000963
Application 12/828,035
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to encoding used in devices such as
video encoders/decoders. Spec. 1:6-7.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A video encoder comprising:
a forward path section that processes a video
input signal in accordance with a first video
compression standard, based on a plurality of
reference pictures, to generate a processed video
signal and a plurality of transformed quantized
residual pixel values, wherein the forward path
section includes:
a non-syntax processing engine that
processes the video input signal from uncompressed
video into an intermediate signal that is partially
encoded by non-syntax encoding the video input
signal in accordance with a second video
compression standard, \~1herein the intermediate
signal includes motion vectors generated in
accordance with the second video compression
standard; and
a syntax section, coupled to the non-syntax
processing engine, for syntax encoding the
intermediate signal, wherein the syntax encoding
transforms and quantizes the intermediate signal to
complete an encoding of the video input signal in
accordance with the first video compression
standard to produce the processed video signal,
wherein the second video compression standard is
different from the first video compression standard;
and
a decoding engine, coupled to the forward
path section, that decodes the plurality of
2
Appeal2015-000963
Application 12/828,035
transformed quantized residual pixel values in
accordance with the first video compression
standard to generate the plurality of reference
pictures.
The Rejections
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Smart (WO 02/087248 A2; Oct. 31, 2002), Ouyang (US 2005/0226324 Al;
Oct. 13, 2005), Shen (US 2007/0058718 Al; Mar. 15, 2007), and Ganesh
(US 2007/0204318 Al; Aug. 30, 2007).
Claims 8 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Smart,
Ouyang, Shen, Ganesh, and Kim (US 8,036,478 B2; Oct. 11, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). Appellants
contend the Examiner errs because, "Claim 1 is directed to two step
encoding," which is "fundamentally different" from the decoding and
encoding of Ouyang and Shen. App. Br. 8.2 Appellants elaborate:
The Response to Arguments section of Examiner's answer
continues to point to features of Ouyang, Shen and Ganesh that
discuss a partial decoding performed as a step of transcoding.
Examiner's answer continues to miss the point of Applicants'
arguments. Partial decoding in a transcoder is not the same as,
nor equivalent to the non-syntax partial encoding set forth in
claim 1.
2 Appellants fail to number the pages of the Appeal Brief. We refer herein
to the pages of the Appeal Brief as if numbered consecutively beginning
with the cover page.
3
Appeal2015-000963
Application 12/828,035
Reply Br. 6. 3 Appellants further contend, "Encoding and decoding are not
the same. A partial decoding operation should not be read as disclosure of a
partial encoding operation." Id.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments because they reduce to an assertion that
the claim language is not disclosed verbatim in the cited references. The
doctrine of obviousness is not an ipsissimis verbis test. That is, identity of
terminology is not required. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978).
Rather, the obviousness inquiry is directed to whether the cited references
would teach or suggest the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Moreover, "it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the
reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would
reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826
(CCP A 1968).
A prima facie case of obviousness requires "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the
Examiner articulates detailed reasoning and sets forth a motivation to
combine the cited references. Ans. 6-11. The Examiner further finds, and
we agree, that the use of the open-ended term comprising does not preclude
the presence of additional steps. Ans. 6. Therefore, although the cited
3 Appellants fail to number the pages of the Reply Brief. We refer herein to
the pages of the Reply Brief as if numbered consecutively beginning with
the cover page.
4
Appeal2015-000963
Application 12/828,035
references as combined by the Examiner begin with decoding resulting in
uncompressed video, these additional steps do not preclude the Examiner's
mapping of the claimed encoding.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. Appellants present no further arguments concerning independent
claim 9 nor dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15. App. Br. 11. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-15.No time
period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5